Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken

On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:40:00AM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> > 
> > I built the current sources with MAXNUMMESSAGES set to 32 in
> > src/include/storage/sinvaladt.h.  The regular regress tests
> > run OK, with just a few NOTICEs about 'cache state reset'
> > and 'SI buffer overflow' inserted in the normal outputs
> > (as you'd expect, if SI overrun occurs).
> > 
> > However, the parallel tests crash spectacularly, with weird errors
> > and Assert() coredumps.  Some of the unexpected messages in the
> > postmaster log are:
> > 
> > ERROR:  Relation 0 does not exist
> > NOTICE:  LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock
> > TRAP: Failed Assertion("!(((file) > 0 && (file) < SizeVfdCache && 
> > VfdCache[file].fileName != ((void *)0))):", File: "fd.c", Line: 817)
> > 
> > !(((file) > 0 && (file) < SizeVfdCache && VfdCache[file].fileName 
> > != ((void *)0))) (0)
> > NOTICE:  LockRelease: locktable lookup failed, no lock
> > TRAP: Failed Assertion("!(attnum <= 0 || (attnum - 1 <= 
> > tuple_type->natts - 1 && tuple_type->attrs[attnum - 1] != ((void 
> > *)0) && variable->vartype == tuple_type->attrs[attnum - 
> > 1]->atttypid)):", File: "execQual.c", Line: 283)
> > 
> > !(attnum <= 0 || (attnum - 1 <= tuple_type->natts - 1 && 
> > tuple_type->attrs[attnum - 1] != ((void *)0) && variable->vartype 
> > == tuple_type->attrs[attnum - 1]->atttypid)) (0) [Not a typewriter]
> > TRAP: Failed Assertion("!(((file) > 0 && (file) < SizeVfdCache && 
> > VfdCache[file].fileName != ((void *)0))):", File: "fd.c", Line: 817)
> > 
> > !(((file) > 0 && (file) < SizeVfdCache && VfdCache[file].fileName 
> > != ((void *)0))) (0) [Not a typewriter]
> > 
> > We have a problem.
> > 
> > I think Hiroshi was beating on this code recently --- Hiroshi,
> > do you recall anything you might have done that would affect
> > SI cache reset recovery?
> >
> 
> Certainly crash occurs.
> But I couldn't see such Assert messages.
> 
> OK,I will examine tomorrow.

How's it going? Can I help?

Cheers,

Patrick